Jude Law To Play Captain Hook?

*sigh*

How many film adaptations have there been of Peter Pan at this point?

Like, I get it, Disney. You're remaking everything. But Peter Pan, more than any other Disney film has just been done before...so. many. times. And it's really hard to (1) do something different -- like Hook, which I don't care how it did at the box office, is an absolute treasure and (2) to be faithful to Barrie's original script/vision for the story. Because then Hook would have to be quasi sympathetic (not an out-and-out villain), and Peter would have to be a bit evil, since Barrie's point was that children can be callous and cruel and selfish. 

So...yeah. Variety didn't offer many details on the plot/story, or even if Jude Law would also be playing Mr. Darling -- which if he isn't, is a travesty. 

Also...I feel like Jude Law is just casting Jason Isaacs 2.0?

via StoryWarren*

Like, doesn't Isaacs-as-Mr.-Darling look like Jude Law?! I haven't seen the 2003 version of Peter Pan in a while, but I remember really enjoying it...

*Sidebar: If you visit the link for the photo credit, the author, Helena Sorenson, seems blown away that the producers decided to cast Jason Isaacs as both Mr. Darling and Captain Hook, like it was some amazingly inventive idea. Which....Nope. (She also reduces Peter Pan to a story about "the wonder of childhood and the bittersweet beauty of growing up" so...) There's been some debate over the deeper meaning behind the dual-casting, but Peter Pan was originally a stage play, with Gerald du Maurier (uncle to the boys who partly inspired Peter Pan) playing both roles. On the one hand, this was purely for financial reasons -- pay one actor to play both parts -- but it also works like the dual casting in Hamilton. Daveed Diggs plays both LaFayette and Jefferson because (1) they're not on stage at the same time; and (2) the audience has already established a connection with the actor. It might be more akin to Anthony Ramos playing both John Laurens and Philip Hamilton, as the audience is already mourning Laurens at the end of Act I, and that connection spills over (given Philip's ultimate fate).
But on the other hand: Peter Pan is inherently about growing up -- specifically Peter's fear of growing up and being a "man" -- and both Mr. Darling and Hook represent the exact type of adult Peter fears growing into: ineffectual and dishonorable. Whether Barrie realized that or whether it was a subconscious, Freudian decision isn't fully clear...

Wait -- Disney Is *Actually* Doing A Live-Action Snow White?!

This girl right here? She's an icon:


via GIPHY

She is not just the OG Disney Princess -- she's the OG Disney Character.

Without her, there would probably not be a "Disney." There (probably) would not be a billion-dollar multi-media conglomerate. We (probably) wouldn't be watching cartoons as adults. We might not even have theme parks, of which Disney ones represent the Gold Star. And who else knows what the trickle-down-effect would be. 

Because back in 1937, pretty much everyone expected an 80-minute feature-length animated film to flop. Which is extra problematic considering Disney sunk everything he had into this film -- I think the estimated budget eventually ballooned up to $1.5 million (in the middle of the Great Depression, remember). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was known as Disney's Folly. 

But maybe it was precisely that historical context -- the Depression -- that made people flock to the theater. For escape, for nostalgia, for air conditioning -- whatever it was, people loved it. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the film made $80 million during its first year: at a time when an adult movie ticket cost a quarter and a child movie ticket a nickel. 

And thus, Disney was saved and an empire was born. 

Now, she's not perfect. She's gotten a lot of criticism. She certainly makes some questionable life-choices: 

via GIPHY

But remember: She was born in 1937. I'm not saying that excuses everything, but face it: things were a helluva lot different then. 

And it's not all bad: sure, she's only 14 and marries a man she basically just met, but at least that man didn't stumble across the seemingly-dead-body of an 8 year old girl in the middle of a forest and attempt to buy her from some dwarves. (Which is what happens in the original story by the Grimm Brothers.) Unlike her successors, her eyes are proportionate and normal-sized. Also unlike her successors, she's got a healthy body type with a realistic waist and some actual curves. And, when she stumbles upon the dwarf's cottage, she doesn't ask for a hand-out: she uses the skills she has (yes, they are limited and domestic) to compensate for a roof over her head. 

So, yes. I'm defending her. And not just because she was my favorite when I was very little. (We also didn't have a lot of options pre-1989):

(My dad would kill me if he saw this photo. Also, remember when Disney characters just wandered the parks?)

ANYWAY. All of this is to say that, as the OG Character, she holds a special place in the realm of Movies-You-Just-Don't-Remake. How could you remake The Wizard of Oz without Judy Garland? Or Gone With The Wind without Clark Gable or Vivien Leigh? Or Breakfast at Tiffany's without Audrey Hepburn? 

I thought, for the longest time, that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was off-limits. Of course her story has been retold -- I actually even enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman, mainly due to Charlize Theron's Wicked Queen, and Gregory's Maguire's Italian take with Lucrezia Borgia as the villainess -- and Disney went so far as make Snow the heroine of its fairy-tale-version-of-Lost, Once Upon A Time. 

But now it seems like the iconic 1937 film has been added to the list of Disney's Remake Machine, having just found a director in Marc Webb. (Yes, the film was announced in 2016, but films are announced all the time--it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get made. We've been waiting on that Wicked film for years now.)

Things That Make Me Cautiously Optimistic:

• Marc Webb was a director/producer on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend which, largely thanks to Rachel Bloom, did exceptional things with its portrayal of mental illness, female friendships, and romantic relationships. 
• Pasek and Paul have been brought on to write new songs for the film -- and if "Speechless" is any indication, this bodes extremely well. 

Things That Might Be Tricky:

• Adriana Caselotti -- Disney's original voice actress -- had an incredibly high voice. And while it may have worked in the 1930s, it's one of the things my students comment on the most when asked about things they disliked about the film. (A quibble, I know, but her voice is iconic.)
• There's not a whole lot of story there, and the source material isn't exactly great by 2019 standards. Most adaptations maintain the element of female jealousy and conflict -- based on appearance/beauty -- and I would love to see Disney change and update this for 2019. 
• I'd also hope that this Snow White will have a spine and won't be quite so passive. While Disney's 2015 version of Cinderella was a beautiful film, and did update some elements of the story, Ella was still "as meek and as mild as a mouse" for  most of the film. 

Finally, while there aren't even whispers of a rumor about the plot, several of the articles I read mention that Disney is also considering a "spin-off" featuring Snow White's "sister," Rose Red. Which....

via GIPHY

...is not entirely true. I mean, yes. I used to think this as a kid because "Snow White and Rose Red" was one of my favorite stories. But...just because they have the same name doesn't mean they're the same character. So...yeah. Not sisters. 

Hopefully, this is just lazy reporting and not actual information coming from Disney. Because that would not bode well. 

Little Mermaid Musings: Casting Possibilities

On the way home from the lake the other day, my husband and I were talking about Aladdin (yes, again). And one of the things we were focusing on was the criticism that Disney didn't do enough with the live-action version.

This is something I struggle with with retellings in general. But I suppose that's the thing, isn't it? Disney isn't really "re-telling" the story -- at least not in the sense that Gail Carson Levine was retelling "Cinderella" with Ella Enchanted or Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant did with Ever After (these two are generally highly regarded when it comes to retelling a classic fairy tale. There are, of course, numerous others, but these are two of my personal favorites.). What Disney is doing is re-making their beloved animated films and occasionally updating them. The closet they've come to retelling is Maleficent, since there's really not much there in the original animated film and Maleficent is, arguably, the most dynamic part of that film. (For the record, I hate the way Linda Woolverton & Co. transformed the Good Fairies, as Merrywether is my icon.)

BUT ANYWAY.

The point is, I think expecting Disney to radically change the fundamental story is setting yourself up for disappointment. This was never going to be Jasmine's story, because the story is, after all, called "Aladdin."

That being said, I do think there are opportunities to do something new and different, without fundamentally changing the narrative of the story.

Case in point: The Little Mermaid live-action film. Y'all know how much I LOVE this film and don't care what the prevailing academic argument about this is a horrible story for feminists because she gives up her voice yada yada yada. Production for the film is rumored to begin sometime in 2020, probably because Lin-Manuel Miranda is a very busy man. BUT. He is on-board:

We’re off and swimming! https://t.co/av6udBuIlp

— Alan Menken (@AIMenken) April 10, 2019

And leaving aside all of LiLo's pleas to be cast as Ariel (NO, DISNEY. JUST NO -- which, to be honest, I don't think would every happen, as Disney is probably well aware of LiLo's career after she jumped the good ship Disney Channel Child Star) -- I think Disney could be radical and different with this film, simply by diversifying the cast.

Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" holds a unique position in fairy-tale-lore, since it is, to the best of my knowledge, an original story written by Andersen in 1837. (Unlike, say, "Cinderella," which has an analogue in most cultures around the world.) So, yes. While Andersen's authorship firmly locates the tale in the European (re: white) tradition, it's also about mermaids. So we're not bound by any "scientific" rules here or anything, since, you know, mermaids aren't real. (Whatever some people might think.)

Zendaya has long been the rumored favorite for the role, although nothing has been confirmed. I've seen a lot of clamor for Lea Michele to play the part, especially after her performance at the Hollywood Bowl recently:

You're welcome. 

And I've always been a fan, but girl should be busy with rehearsals for Wicked, because if she isn't cast as Elphaba in that remake, then I want nothing to do with it. 

As should Dove Cameron who, despite the 10-year-age-gap between her and Michele is one of my picks to play Galinda -- which is still relevant, because my husband thought Dove Cameron would make a good choice for Ariel as well. 

BUT. After watching The Greatest Showman -- because I aged out of Disney Channel before her show Shake It Up aired -- I'm a fan. And totally support this casting choice. 

So that got our drive-home-discussion going: if Zendaya is cast as Ariel, and if LMM brings some of his race-swapping Hamilton magic to the film...well. This could be the statement piece for Disney that so many wanted Aladdin to be. 

We decided LMM would make a great Grimsby -- we could age him down from the fuddy-duddy butler he is in the animated film to more of best-friend-advisor -- and we know he can rock that period-piece-ponytail:

For King Triton -- we'd cast The Rock. We first thought of Jason Momoa, but that's a little on-the-nose given that he was just Aquaman. But the more we thought about it, the more we were on board, because (1) he is the model for fatherhood we need these days -- and with three daughters, he could easily channel that into the role since Ariel has 6 sisters; and (2) Triton was always weirdly buff for a dude with a white beard, and Disney could save on their CGI budget by casting The Rock.
Edit: After some thought, I might be okay with Terry Crews as King Triton. Can he sing? Broadway Triton sings, I think...

We agreed that Tituss Burgess should have a role somewhere -- casting him as Sebastian is also a little on-the-nose since he originated the role on Broadway, but I'd like to see him as Ursula. This is the potentially most subversive -- and thus the potentially most important -- role for Disney to cast. While Ursula was voiced -- iconically! -- by Pat Carroll in the animated film, the character was famously modeled on the drag queen Divine and that legacy should not be underplayed. Casting a gay man or a draq queen or a trans actor would be an incredible move by Disney -- Harvey Fierstein recently played Ursula at The Hollywood Bowl -- although I can see them going with a bigger name for the star power. I think Lady Gaga is the rumored favorite, but Rebel Wilson also slayed at the Hollywood Bowl. Maybe NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour team would be happy if Billy Porter was cast in this role? 

As for Eric...IDK. So long as it's not Henry Cavill, I think I'm okay. 

Where Is Skanland? -- Aladdin's "Controversial" Prince Anders Role Revealed

As I sit here, waiting for a band of thunderstorms to roll in and listening to the Aladdin score (whatever else you want to say about the live-action Aladdin, you cannot deny the talent of Alan Menken) -- I want to revisit something I blogged about a year and a half ago:

This Guy:

This is Billy Magnussen, a.k.a. Prince Anders in the new live-action version who, as many people have pointed out, does not exist in the animated version.

Back in September 2017, I wrote about my thoughts on this, which are complicated given my privilege.

For the record, I was almost exactly spot-on about Magnussen's role:

"FWIW, and this is probably a best case scenario, I hope Magnussen is playing the role of Prince Achmed from the animated film -- the prince who looks disdainfully at the people of Agrabah and who Jasmine (and Rajah) promptly rejects when he tries to impress her with all his wealth and status.
Maybe the Sultan is so desperate to see Jasmine married that he tries to arrange a marriage with her fairy-tale style -- you know, how in the fairy tales the King always says "whoever can complete task X can marry my daughter" and princes come from far and wide to try and win the princess, but in the end, it's the miller's son, or the stable boy who succeeds and rises up. (Which is, essentially, the story of Aladdin.) So maybe Prince Anders is either invited by the Sultan or hears of the stubborn princess and travels from Scandinavia to try his luck. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, he's arrogant and entitled and elitist and looks down on our hero and the hungry children of Agrabah. And maybe, just like Prince Achmed, Jasmine puts him in his place and rejects him. Maybe there's a subtle commentary on the white savior narrative and this casting/narrative will flip it."

via GIPHY

If you've seen the film, you'll know that's pretty close. Prince Anders does replace Prince Achmed, but it plays out pretty much the same.

Except.

Where in the 1992 animated film Prince Achmed was pompous, arrogant, disdainful, and even cruel -- Prince Anders is...kind of a buffoon? He's pretty -- and it's a genuinely strong moment when Jasmine comments on his beauty (he's just complimented hers) and he says something like, "I know right? But no one ever mentions it!" And Jasmine, being the strong, take-no-BS-feminist that she is retorts with, "Isn't it strange that we have the same title [prince/princess], but people talk about us so differently?" (Something like that -- I don't remember the exact wording.)

And poor Prince Anders -- you can see he doesn't quite get what she means. And you just want to ruffle his hair and pat his head, because he's not very bright.

So, yes. Jasmine does put him in his place and does reject him -- and that's about it. There's no significant change to the plot. Which does lend support to the idea that it wasn't necessary to cast a white man in the role.

I do think there's lost potential here -- I think Ritchie & Co. could have implemented the subtle commentary about the white savior narrative, thereby validating the decision to change Achmed to Anders. And this connects back to one of my other quibbles with the film -- the identity of Jasmine's mother. Or, at least, where her mother comes from. (This was alluded to in interviews, but is never explicitly dealt with in the text of the film.)

One of the minor-plot points of the film is that Jafar wants to control the Sultan/become a Sultan because, like every Super Evil Bad Guy evar, he's bent on world domination. He wants to turn Agrabah into an empire, not just a prosperous city. To do that, he needs to invade [insert fictional name of country where Jasmine's mother is from]. Jafar also indicates that Skanland -- Prince Ander's fictional country -- could be a strong military/political ally.

Sure. They're fictional countries, so why not.

I'm just saying: there could have been a 30-second addition to the scene where Jafar is trying to mind-meld the Sultan with a map that shows where each of the countries are located. The country where Jasmine's mother is from could look vaguely like India (as I suspect it's supposed to be) and Skanland could be...IDK, near Arendelle or something? This would fit with the military strategy the Sultan is supposed to be reviewing and could neatly tie these loose ends together. (Maybe the countries are on the map when Jasmine is trying to find Ababwa, but I was distracted by the Fantasyland easter egg. I'd have to rewatch to verify.)

Giving Skanland a strategic military value -- paired with the obvious buffoonery of Magnussen's Anders -- would be enough to flip the white savior narrative: Look at this idiot who thinks he's coming to save the day but is really just being used and manipulated by an evil vizier. The potential was there--it just wasn't actualized.

Let's get this together before you deal with The Little Mermaid, Disney. You've got LIN-MANUEL MIRANDA working on this with you. Don't screw it up.

"It's Chaotic, But Hey It's Home": Disney's Live-Action "Aladdin"

"Oh, imagine a land, it's a faraway place where the caravan camels roam,

Where you wander among, every culture and tongue--

It's chaotic, but hey, it's home!"

So starts Disney's live-action Aladdin -- a new beginning for the now infamous lyrics of "Arabian Nights*." That line -- "it's chaotic, but hey, it's home" -- seems to nicely sum up the 2019 version: the live-action adaptation is a bit of a hodge-podge, and I'm not entirely sure the film knows what it wants to be (is it a straight remake? is it a retelling? is it a feminist story about a non-mad-queen's rise to power? is it an action movie?). But it's familiar and comforting and taps into the nostalgia 90s' Kids (those of us who were kids in the 1990s) have for Renaissance Disney films.

*(See, for instance, the NY Times review, "It's Racist, But Hey It's Disney!" and the LA Times' coverage of the changes Disney made in response to that criticism. Vanity Fair also seems to have a pretty good piece on the changes that were made in the 2019 version, but I admit I haven't fully read it yet.)

My husband and I had a chance to see it this afternoon, and, per usual, I went in without reading any extensive reviews. I can't help seeing the headlines as I scroll past them on social media but I try to avoid them so I can form my own, relatively uncolored opinion. On the way home, we had a pretty good discussion about what we thought of it and it ended with my saying, "I bet Glen Weldon from your NPR podcast will hate it." For the record, I don't think I was wrong. My husband loves this podcast -- I can't really do podcasts or audiobooks as I tend to zone out, no matter how engaging they are; and I do think this one is pretty engaging -- and we usually listen to their discussion of films after we see them.

But I couldn't get on board with their review of the film. From what I've seen in just Googling the articles I've needed for this post, the reactions seem to be mixed, with some critics praising Will Smith as the saving grace of the film and others lamenting his role, so, to paraphrase Will Smith's Genie, there's a lot of gray area here.
I've embedded the podcast here, since my post is largely a response to this discussion. Read more below the jump cut!

Dumbo First Reactions -- Burton Is Back

Y'all know I've had my reservations about Tim Burton's Dumbo. (Check out my past thoughts here.)  But apparently, this film is surprising people:

via EW

There are some negative first reactions, of course, but on the whole, people seem to have enjoyed it and are calling it Burton's best film in years. When Burton is good, he's very, very good. The thing is, he kinda hasn't been for awhile. But maybe that's about to change?

DUMBO stole my heart. I'm totally cool with it. Congrats to everyone behind this beautiful, surprising & visually mindblowing film. pic.twitter.com/cekRIzTOcc

— Julia Hart (@juliahartowitz) March 12, 2019

Our reporter @minkus saw #Dumbo. “It’s absolutely wonderful - a beautiful story, quite different than the original, that won’t leave a dry eye in the theater. The cast is kismet together on screen. It’s one of Tim Burton’s best in a long time.” Full review on the 26th. pic.twitter.com/1VvhDU9dbl

— Attractions Magazine (@Attractions) March 12, 2019

I really enjoyed #Dumbo⁠ ⁠. It’s a beautiful and whimsical movie, starring a CGI elephant with so much heart. It’s also a rather simple tale, so don’t expect tons of character septh. But I still had a blast with the ride it took me on and it’s the best Burton’s been in years. pic.twitter.com/tKu6eHfKlM

— Chris E. Hayner (@ChrisHayner) March 12, 2019

I know I don’t sound too enthused about this movie but it was enjoyable, and it is certainly worlds better than Beauty and the Beast and Mary Poppins Returns. For reference, the only Disney live action remakes I liked were Jungle Book and Cinderella.

— Peter Sciretta (@slashfilm) March 12, 2019

Okay, I don't really understand this one because I thought Mary Poppins Returns was fantastic and so creatively and subtly tied to the books.

New Year's Promise FAIL

One of my New Year's Promises (I'm not sold on the word "promises," but it's better than "resolutions" so...) was to blog more. Whoops.

But it's Spring Break, and this seems to be a good time to hit "reset."

So, starting nice and easy: Disney recently released a new poster for Maleficent 2. Take a look below:

Like many of Disney's projects this year, not much is known about the plot. Both Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning are returning (as Maleficent and Aurora, respectively) -- as are Juno Temple and Imelda Staunton as two of the three fairies (don't get me started on their characters from the original film). The big casting for the sequel is Michelle Pfeiffer as "Queen Ingrith," but no one really knows what her role will entail.

But the "reveal" from the trailer comes in the subtitle of the sequel: "Mistress of Evil."

I mean...that's our girl Maleficent. At least, in the 1959 film:

The only problem is that that's not Maleficent's MO anymore. That's the whole point of the 2014 film. The first line of the film is literally, "Let us tell an old story anew and we will see how well you know it."The whole point is that Maleficent isn't really evil, she's just a scorned woman who made a bad decision but ultimately was saved by true (maternal) love. 

Which raises the question: Who is the Mistress of Evil? I, of course, want it to be Maleficent, but I doubt it will be. Which leaves, potentially, Michelle Pfeiffer's character. 

I would like to say, "I'm sure Disney will come through with a stellar storyline" but...after the first movie, I can't be too sure. On the one hand, yes. I thought it was fantastic that Disney took one of their most passive female characters and created a film that didn't hinge on romantic love. But, on the other hand, Maleficent is the most bad-ass Disney villain (and if Buzzfeed agrees, it must be true 😂).  She's evil just because she wants to be. There's no tragic backstory, no jilted lover, no scorned woman. And Disney took that away in their attempt to...I'm not really sure. I think "create an empowered fairy-tale retelling that didn't pit women against each other." So, yeah. I'm not super optimistic at the moment. 

Mary Poppins Returns -- New Trailer

Cue the "practically perfect in every way" and "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" puns. 

This morning was...rough, for a variety of reasons. But, then this trailer dropped and things got a little brighter:

First--that cast! I knew Emily Blunt was playing Mary Poppins (and that the iconic Dame Julie Andrews gave her her blessing); I knew that Lin-Manuel Miranda was playing Jack -- not Bert!!! -- I even knew that Dick Van Dyke was playing/reprising the role of Mr. Dawes (again, not Bert). 

But Angela Lansbury! Colin Firth! Julie Walters! And Meryl Streep!!!

Second--this is probably uber-nerdy even for an uber-Disney-nerd, but I love the film-specific castles in the front of each film:

But I also left a piece of my heart in London, so there's that. 

Third--the old-school 2D animation!!! 😍😍😍

ScreenRant has a really cool article on the attention to detail in this sequence -- how it's not just an homage to the original film or a remake of it, that's worth a read. (For example, how the characters' clothes look they were drawn/animated, which you can kinda see above!) 

Fourth--the CGI. When it came out in the 1960s, Mary Poppins was a technical innovation for its time (something that can always be said of Disney) -- but with the advances in CGI, the magic is going to seem so much more...fluid. 

I'm sure this film will be filled with Easter eggs and nods to the original film -- the kite, the original house with the infamous bannister, the chimney sweeps dancing, the 2D animation, Jane campaigning for women's rights, just like her mother -- which makes my heart happy on so many levels. There's even a questionable Cockney accent from LMM, continuing Dick Van Dyke's terrible accent tradition. 

Look, I'm sure P. L. Travers -- author of the original Mary Poppins book -- would probably hate this film too. I've blogged about Disney's Mary Poppins and Distory before, with the end result being my decision to both love the books as one of the cornerstones of children's literature and the Disney movie as a cornerstone of my own childhood. (Julie Andrews was one of my grandmother's favorite actresses and we watched this movie together a lot.) I know that the Disney movie(s) are Disneyfied versions of the books and while I wish Disney would reflect that in this film -- especially given it's setting during the Depression, a less cheerful, more no-nonsense Mary Poppins would fit -- I'm not expecting them too. The trailer reflects that -- it looks a magical concoction about the wonder and purity of childhood -- and I can't wait to see it. 

Disney's A Wrinkle In Time Dolls Are Mattel's Barbies, Not Hasbro's Princesses

Okay. Before we start. Full disclosure: I loved, loved, LOVED Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle In Time series when I was younger. (I think I slightly preferred A Ring of Endless Light, but that may have been because of the dolphins.) Regardless, I love L'Engle's writing and her stories and, like all things from our childhoods that we love, I'm fiercely protective of them.

So when Disney bought the rights, I was initially skeptical. While I love Disney animation, their track record of live-action films is "meh," IMHO.

But then they brought Ava DuVernay on as the director and Frozen's Jennifer Lee to adapt the screen play and cast Storm Reid as Meg Murray. In the book, from what I remember, there isn't much mention made of the Murray's family racial identity -- although I think Meg has red hair, which would lean toward Caucasian -- and while I don't know much about L'Engle's personal beliefs, it's probably a safe bet that, given the 1962 publication date, they were a white family. But the Murray family is different, and viewed as such by their small-town neighbors. So DuVernay's decisions to cast Storm Reid as Meg, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as her mother Kate and Chris Pine as her father Alex, resulting in an interracial marriage, makes consistent thematic sense, especially in today's current cultural climate.

All of that is a rather long-winded way of saying: the film looks amazing and progressive and full of (black) girl power.

Cut to this photo that the official A Wrinkle In Time media released:

Here’s your first look at the new #WrinkleInTime dolls for Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who! (via @stormreid) #Barbie pic.twitter.com/Dghze3oJVW

— A Wrinkle In Time (@WrinkleInTime) January 25, 2018

And here's director Ava DuVernay's tweet about them as well:

When Disney makes Barbies of your movie’s characters and you just want to stare at them all day in disbelief because you loved Barbies as a girl but never had any like these. #WrinkleinTime pic.twitter.com/7PzQsiNoyG

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) January 25, 2018

Now. The important thing to note here is that these dolls are Barbies. And Barbies are made by Mattel. Reese Witherspoon confirmed this in her tweet:

When a childhood dream comes to life! Excited to reveal my very own @Mattel doll based off of my Red-headed alter ego, Mrs. WhatsIt from #WrinkleInTime!! 💫⭐️✨ #DreamComeTrue pic.twitter.com/mpknhGjSvV

— Reese Witherspoon (@RWitherspoon) January 26, 2018

"Okay. So what?" you might be asking.

Well...the dolls do look like their real-life counterparts....at least in their face shape. That is,
Mrs. Which has Mindy Kaling's round face, Mrs. Whatsit has Oprah's elongated, oval face, and Mrs. Who has Reese Witherspoon's heart-shaped face. But...

But.

As a friend pointed out, the dolls all have the same body type which "is not in any way representative of the body shape of any of those three women." That's not to say that there's anything wrong with their body shapes -- in fact, I'd even strongly argue against that: while Reese Witherspoon may have a "normal" body size for Hollywood, both Mindy Kaling and Oprah are more representative of the average American woman -- it's just to say that, in real life, each of these three women are built very differently, a fact which isn't portrayed by their dolls.

It's not unsurprising though, given that the A Wrinkle In Time dolls are manufactured by Mattel. After all, Barbie has had an unrealistic figure for years. But we're moving towards a more inclusive, body-positive society and, yes, Mattel has started to recognize the marketability of Barbies with more diverse body shapes.

Which is partially why (1) these dolls and their body shapes and (2) Disney's decision to have Mattel, not Hasbro, manufacture them is so disappointing to me.

A little context/background/history:
Fact: Mattel used to have a contract with Disney to manufacture their Disney Princess dolls, arguably their biggest money-making brand.
Fact: Mattel lost that contract to Hasbro, who demonstrated more of a willingness to evolve and meet the expanding conception of "princess" as empowered (re: not just passive and pretty).
Fact: Mattel's concept for the Disney Princess dolls was basically Barbie-as-Princess-X -- that is, Mattel's Cinderella was basically Barbie dressed as Cinderella and so on for the rest of the princesses.
Fact: Hasbro's dolls look distinctly different from Mattel's dolls -- for example, Snow White, Cinderella, Jasmine, and Mulan --  with different face and eye shapes. There's still not a ton of body diversity, but I suppose it's naive to think that the doll industry would be completely revolutionary in one step.

My Conclusion: as a mother, who will soon be faced with buying her own daughter (yeah, yeah -- I'm looking forward to it; no one's twisting my arm) Disney princess merchandise, I much prefer Hasbro's diversity to Mattel's homogeneity. That is, I didn't grow up with either one -- I was in high school when the concept of Disney Princess as a brand emerged -- so I don't have a preference or nostalgic bias for the Mattel Barbie-like dolls. (People online seem to be strongly divided over this issue, and several students indicated that they preferred the Mattel ones, but acknowledged that's what they grew up with.) But I like that the dolls look different, even if their heads are rather large.

Financially though...at least in the 2016 holiday season, Hasbro outsold Mattel. Now, there could be a lot of factors at play here, one of which being that parents will buy Disney Princess dolls regardless of who manufactures them, if they're even aware that there was a change. What's significant though, is that parents aren't not buying the dolls; that the dolls are still selling, whereas Barbie, before her image overhaul, just wasn't as popular.

All of this is to say that given Disney's marketing of  A Wrinkle in Time as a strong female-driven movie, and especially in light of their campaign to redefine what it means to be a princess (it's about character, not fashion) and evidenced through the new appearance of the dolls, I don't understand why Mattel produced the Wrinkle in Time dolls. Yes, giving them to Hasbro wouldn't mean that they'd certainly have different, more authentic body shapes. And yes, the larger head-sizes of the Hasbro dolls might work better for cartoon characters than they might for dolls based on real women, but...I guess we'll never know.

"Brown-Face" Controversy & Disney's Live-Action Aladdin

Me, anytime I see news about Disney's live-action Aladdin:

via GIPHY

Also me:

via GIPHY

Today's news is brought to you to by the cautiously optimistic news that Disney is not actually engaging in brown-face:

Read the full article at Vanity Fair

I mean...yay? 

I've said it before: I feel like this adaptation is going to be a train-wreck. Maybe it's the law of averages -- you can only have so many acclaimed blockbusters before one just misses the mark but....every time news about this adaptation comes out, it just screams disaster. 

Is this really where we're at, Disney? Have you learned NOTHING?!

*sigh*

I guess you could say that, on the bright side, Disney wasn't putting brown face on "extras"; they claim they were "darkening" the faces of crew members so that they could "blend in." Which...seems like a hasty cover-up for PR reasons, but that's just my thought. 

On the other hand, the actor cast as The Sultan, Navid Negahban, had this to say about the film:

“It’s not whitewashing,” he said. The actor then used a metaphor to explain the importance of diversity. 

“The thing is that the garden should be filled with flowers of different kinds,” he said. “If not, the garden is going to be very boring. So you’re gonna go and see this beautiful garden with colorful flowers, and I just hope that you enjoy the journey.”

“Just go enjoy the journey,” Negahban said, “because you will definitely love the film. It doesn’t matter how old you are, the film has something for you to take away from it.”

Which should bode well for the film, whatever reports are circulating in the media.

But then again...voice actors have a history of defending the films they're cast in: Russell Means controversially defended Pocahontas, saying that focusing on the historical inaccuracies took away from the fact that it was a film that finally admitted the English were egregiously in the wrong.

I feel like I say "we'll have to wait and see" a lot but...

Disney's The Nutcracker and the Four Realms Trailer

So, this dropped the other day:

And, yes: that is Keira Knightley. 

I have mixed thoughts about this. 

On the one hand, it's a Disney movie that looks absolutely gorgeous. So of course I'm excited. 

Also in the "plus" column -- my daughter's name is Clara (she was named after a Doctor Who companion though; not the character from The Nutcracker) so if this Clara is a princess (1) she can share a name with a Disney princess and (2) we'll buy ALL the Clara merchandise because, Hi. I'm a good little Disney consumer.

Another plus: this looks like it has  a lot of girl power. Clara looks like she undergoes some sort of warrior princess transformation which could bode well from a gender studies perspective.

And, of course, Misty Copeland. 

But on the other hand....I don't know. It seems a little too Alice in Wonderland to me. Curious girl enters fantasy land with a cast of magical creatures and characters and undergoes a journey of self-discovery which results in her empowerment and subsequent victory over Evil.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Alice in Wonderland (the Carroll book -- not so much the Disney adaptation, although it was creative in its own way) but that doesn't mean I want the story to become a formula for media companies to use for every coming-of-age story with a female protagonist who travels to a fantasy land. It's been a while since I've seen The Nutcracker (and I'll admit that I've never read the original Hoffman story) so perhaps the story does need some updating. I have vague recollections of the Mouse King fighting the Nutcracker....but Clara saves him by throwing a shoe? And then he whisks her away to the fairy-tale land of flower dances and sugar plum fairies...so, not terribly problematic, but perhaps there's room for improvement/updating. And, after all: that's the true litmus test for a new adaptation of a beloved story: what is the "something new" you're doing with the story?

Prince Anders Coming To Agrabah

Um, okay.

Fresh from the Hollywood Reporter -- Billy Magnussen has been cast as an "original character" (re: not in the 1992 animated film), Prince Anders. (And also that Nasim Pedrad will play Jasmine's handmaid...I always did think it odd that the only three people living in such a huge palace were the Sultan, Jasmine, and Jafar.) Which...is an odd bit of casting news. My first thought would be that he's one of the suitors who the Sultan brings in to try and impress Jasmine, but...yeah. Maybe that scene's being expanded/reworked?

IDK. Of all the live-action adaptations of my childhood Disney staples currently in the works, I am the least excited about Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Aladdin. (I am more excited about Tim Burton's Dumbo than this one.) Which is a shame, because this could have been such an opportunity for Disney to retell an iconic tell without, you know, whitewashing it. I know there was a lot of casting controversy (which may or may not be resolved), but maybe not having a white male as a director would have been a good idea? Also, I'm just not a fan of Guy Ritchie's style, so there's that.

Ugh.

Dear God: Disney Is Making A Live-Action Lion King

I suppose we only have ourselves to blame for this one: according to Variety, this summer's live-action (re: CGI) adaptation of The Jungle Book earned over $900 million worldwide (the third Disney film to do so this year; I imagine that Moana will be the fourth in November).

So I guess Disney likes Jon Favreau because...

Excited for my next project 🦁👑

— Jon Favreau (@Jon_Favreau) September 28, 2016 

That's right. Not only is Disney making a live-action (re: CGI because there's not even a single human in this story) The Lion King -- but they've put it on the fast-track. Whatever that means.

I kinda get The Jungle Book adaptation...it was the 1960s and isn't as popular but remaking the Renaissance Disney classics? WHY?!

Disney, I love you. I really, truly, honestly do. But at some point, the remakes have to stop. NOTHING will ever touch Elton John's version of "The Circle of Life" so...just stop.

Lin-Manuel Miranda + Disney's The Little Mermaid

Yes, you read that right. Current It-Boy Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Disney on a live-action adaptation of The Little Mermaid.

BRB. I need to go die of fangirl-excitement.

via EW

According to Deadline, Miranda will (1) co-produce the film (he's not writing the story but will "supervise" it) and (2) will write songs with Alan Menken.

The article mentions that it's an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" but...I'm pretty sure it's just going to be a remake of the 1989 Disney film (a.k.a. my first Disney love and obsession) as Andersen is a bit too dark for Disney. (Also, Chloe Grace Moretz is starring in that film -- and she's been adamant about it is darker and it's not the Disney version.)

All that being said...I have no idea what a "live-action" adaptation of a story about mermaids and evil sea witches and set largely underwater even looks like. I mean...I would imagine it's something akin to a "live-action adaptation" of The Jungle Book where by "live-action" they mean "largely CGI." Although, Annie Leibowitz made a bunch of Olympic swimmers look like convincing merpeople, so it could happen. (Still one of my favorites things EVER.)

I'll end with this final thought: I have complete trust in LMM. I know he's not writing the story (yet), but if anyone can pull off a live-action adaptation and make it new and fresh, it's him. After all, if you'd told me that Broadway's hottest ticket right now would be to a rap-musical based on the life of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, I would have laughed and epically eye-rolled.

"Disney" and "Flop" Do Not Often Appear in the Same Sentence

Yikes.

Leaving aside all the personal drama involving Johnny Depp, I'm really not surprised by this. (Full story here.)

The first Alice seemed so promising -- if there was ever a director who you would think would perfectly capture Lewis Carroll's Wonderland, it would be Tim Burton. And with a cast that included Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Stephen Fry, and Alan Rickman (RIP, Snape)...well, it seemed like it would be amazing.

And...it wasn't. I was so excited about this movie -- Alice is one of my favorite novel -- that a group of friends and I splurged and saw it in IMAX (the REAL IMAX in downtown Raleigh; not the IMAX screens they have in some movie theaters). 

Now, I'm rather picky when it comes to adaptations (particularly of adaptations of my favorite books), and while some of the connections to the original source material were clever, I remember walking out of the theater really disappointed. 

And the trailer for Through the Looking Glass looks predictably lackluster. I was planning on seeing it for two reasons only: (1) it's Disney, and Alice, so...research? and (2) it was one of Alan Rickman's last films. 

Part of my skepticism, I think, lies with the screenwriter, Linda Woolverton...she also wrote the screenplays for Beauty and the Beast and Maleficent. But I'm still sorting out my thoughts on that issue...

More Beauty and the Beast Thoughts

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Beauty and the Beast today...mainly after reading this Entertainment Weekly article, "Beauty and the Beast trailer: 5 Callbacks to the Original Film."

I have a weird relationship with this film...as a child, I loved this movie. Like a lot. (It was no Little Mermaid, though. That was, and remains, one of my top three favorite Disney movies. And Ariel is probably my favorite princess, since Tink is a fairy and Elsa is a queen.) After all, Belle was a bookworm -- she read books! Just like me!

But Beauty and the Beast is also the only film I've changed my opinion about after teaching this course for a few years -- it's the one film where I find most of the criticism to be accurate, raising some really interesting questions and issues.

It's also the film that has the most plot-holes to me -- where "fairy tale logic" breaks down the most.
(For example: where does Chip come from? Lumiere says the servants have been "rusting, needing so much more than dusting" for ten years -- but at the end of the film, when the household objects all turn back into servants, "Chip" looks like a little boy about 6-8 years old. And his mother, Mrs. Potts, is an adorable white-haired old lady who looks like she might have a thing for Maurice, Belle's father. So where exactly did Chip the little teacup come from? It doesn't seem like he was born when the castle was cursed so...)

But another one of the big plot holes seems to be addressed in the trailer. As the EW article points out, one of the links between the live-action film and the original animated film is the Beast's slashed portrait:

"We don’t see the Beast in this teaser, but we do see what his claws can do. In the original, he slashes a portrait of himself in his pre-Beast form. Here, it’s a portrait of him as a young boy with his parents."

Okay. So here's my issue with the original, animated film. Here's the portrait of the Beast from the animated film:

Okay. Cool. He looks like a handsome prince, a fairy-tale staple.

But.

Again, as Lumiere tells us, the servants have been "rusting" away for 10 years. So far, so good.

But.

We also know that Beast has until his 21st birthday to break the spell -- otherwise, he'll stay a Beast forever. This is pretty much the year our story starts -- which explains why Beast is extra moody and the servants extra needy desperate eager.

Now, I may be an English major, but even I can handle that math: If Beast is 21 now, and they've all been enchanted for 10 years, that means Beast was ELEVEN years old when the strange woman knocked on his door, demanding shelter.

Guy in that portrait above? Definitely not eleven years old. (In fact, he bears a remarkable similarity to what non-beast-Beast looks like once the spell is broken.)

Also--the plot basically hinges on the fact that an eleven year old boy is punished for not letting a stranger into his home. Clearly, wherever his parents are (another plot hole), they managed to teach Beast a little thing known as "Stranger Danger" before they left.
[Sidebar: I suppose you could argue that the spell freezes them all at the age they were at the time of the enchantment, but I remain skeptical. Because, again, Chip. Clearly a little kid. And, after 10 years of being a teacup, you would think that he would have matured a little bit...but then again, I've never been magicked into a teacup, so what do I know.)

Regardless, I very much appreciate the fact that Beast's portrait has been appropriately aged-down:

Which, hopefully, means that Stephen Chobsky noticed the same glaring plot holes that I did. 

EDIT: And which, apparently, a lot of other people on the Internet did as well. 

Now, if they'll only address how the villagers didn't seem to know about the giant castle and the emo Beast living in the forest, we'll be in a good spot. (Because if you can march to a castle, on foot, as a giant angry mob, it's clearly not that far away.)

Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme...

...Beauty and the Beast. 

The teaser trailer.

It's finally here.

I may or may not be having a fangirl freak-out moment over here.

I have been super excited about this adaptation -- and particularly the casting choices -- for awhile. I know that there was talk about Emma Watson playing Beauty in a Guillermo del Toro version (which would have been much darker, for sure), but when Stephen Chbosky (author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower and who worked with Emma Watson on the film adaptation of that book) signed on to write the screenplay, I got even more excited. 

Like most Disney projects, details of this one were kept tightly under wraps. While Luke Evans and Josh Gad were pretty active on social media (relatively speaking), the one thing that the Internet really wanted to see -- Emma Watson as Belle -- was the one thing we didn't get. 

Until now:

It's small, but it's something. (It's also the only shot we get of an actual character in the film.) My husband complained that the trailer didn't reveal much -- that he wanted "more" than just scenic shots and voice-overs. 

My response? "It's called a teaser trailer for a reason." At which he astutely compared it to the teaser trailer for Cinderella, which was basically just a shoe and a butterfly, so at least we got a little more. But not nearly enough. :) 

Disney Working on Mary Poppins Sequel (Of Sorts)

The news that Disney is basically remaking every one of it's animated classics into a live-action film isn't new.

What is new is reports that they're pursuing Emily Blunt for the role of Mary Poppins -- but not in a remake.

(c) Entertainment Weekly / Getty Images

The news comes from a Variety report and indicates that Rob Marshall (Chicago, Into The Woods) would direct. 

The most important information of the report -- at least to Disney/children's lit scholars/fans -- is this:

"Insiders confirm the new film will take place in Depression-era London 20 years after the first film and will take story lines from P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on Poppins’ continued adventures with the Banks family."

First--it  does confirm the reports that this would not be a remake of the 1964 live-action/animated film starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (In other words, Emily Blunt would not be replacing Julie Andrews, but rather stepping into her (albeit rather large) shoes.)

This is key, I think, namely because Julie Andrews is so beloved, and this was an iconic role for her.

What's interesting though is the decision to fast-forward 20 years. Jane and Michael will have (presumably) grown up at this point, so I'm assuming that perhaps Mary Poppins will come to deal with their children, the next generation. (Although Jane and Michael would have had to get married rather early in life to have children the same age they were when Mary visited them...but details.)

I'm also curious to see whether Emily-Blunt-as-Mary-Poppins will be more faithful to Travers' original vision of Mary. While Disney romanticized the relationship between Travers and Walt in the film Saving Mr. Banks, the true account is much more...contentious. Travers and Walt fought over almost every aspect of the film, and she left the premiere in tears. (Which apparently led to her reluctance to give the rights for the Broadway musical, but that Mary is much more in line with the literary version: sterner, less "spoonful of sugar.")

Of course, all speculation at the moment, since nothing is set in stone, but interesting nonetheless.

Emma Stone To Play Cruella DeVil?

In the grand tradition of milking things for all that they're worth, you may have realized that Disney is releasing a spate of live-action adaptations of, or inspired by, its classic films -- most notably Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson as Belle and The Jungle Book with its all-star, CGI cast.

The relative successes of Maleficent (giving villains a backstory) and Cinderella (essentially retelling the classic animated story in live-action) are, I suppose, at the heart of this: if those films had flopped, Disney probably wouldn't be so eager to spend money on the 15 or so live-action films currently in talks or production.

One of the most curious of these ("The Most Curious" HAS to go to the Chernabog movie -- and if you're asking "who?" I don't think it's unreasonable. Chernabog is, after all, the villain from Disney's Fantasia -- an unlikely movie and character on which to base a live-action film) is the live-action movie about Cruella DeVil. A memorable antagonist from a beloved Disney film, to be sure. But worthy of her own movie?

I remain skeptical.

After all, part of what makes Disney villains so great (in my opinion; I know some Disney scholars take issue with their portrayal of female power and villainy) is that they're evil. Like, pure, unadulterated, unabashedly EVIL. They're bad, and they know. They're not conflicted over it. (Which is part of the reason I wasn't enamored with Maleficent: of all the Disney villains, she's just so evil and the Angelina Jolie movie tried to explain that away. It did so in a powerful way, to be sure, but still. Can't she just be evil?!)

Cruella DeVil though...there's the potential for a really great, complex psychological backstory there....after all, one of the complaints when she showed up on Once Upon A Time was that she's not a "magical villain." That is, Cruella doesn't wield or use magic: she's just a horrible, puppy-killing, fur-coat-wearing, real person. And slightly (okay, probably more than slightly) maniacal and deranged.

The animated Cruella, c.1961; Glenn Close in the 1996 live-action remake;
and Victoria Smurfit in Once Upon A Time, c. 2014

And now the latest news is that Emma Stone is being pursued by Disney to portray Cruella in the live-action remake:

Which...is interesting. The obvious comment is that Emma Stone is young, which implies that we're definitely getting a backstory, and that we might not never overlap with the events of 101 Dalmatians. (It's Disney, though, so who knows.) And Emma Stone could bring a delightful, sassy spark to the character...as well as the emotional depth that a truly "good" story might call for.

Verdict: If Emma Stone agrees, I've no doubt she'll do a fantastic job. My skepticism lies, I think, with the script/story and the fact that Cruella DeVil is getting her own movie in the first place. 

Chloe Grace Moritz as The Little Mermaid

One of the big news stories this weekend -- judging from the amount of times it popped up in my social media feeds -- that wasn't about a major coffee chain and their alleged war on Christmas, was the news that Chloe Grace Moretz was cast as The Little Mermaid.

Notice I didn't say "Ariel."

Because she is most emphatically not Ariel--whatever the media would like you to believe in order to get you to click their links.

Exhibit A:

 Exhibit B:

(Although, I honestly don't know what's going on with Ariel in this photo. Seriously.)

Even CNN seems to have missed the point of the story it's reporting, given this headline:

The  initial article I read made it very clear that this is an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's original story by Working Title and Universal -- the latter of which is one of Disney's biggest rivals. Richard Curtis is allegedly working on the screenplay -- which, if he hadn't given me one of my favorite episodes of Doctor Who, I'd be a bit worried since he's more famous for his rom-com work; Notting Hill, Love Actually, Bridget Jones's Diary to name a few.

But the point remains, The Little Mermaid is somehow one of the only films that hasn't been rumored to have a live-action adaptation in the works. So it makes sense that Universal would be focusing on their adaptation -- fingers crossed it will be much more faithful to Andersen's original tale. Which would mean it would be a much darker, feminist story, but we'll see.